1921-02-23

REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations during its first session, November 15 to December 18 last; Report by the Secretary-General to the first Assembly of the League on the work of the Council-Right Hon. Mr. Meighen.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, to incorporate The Canadian Bar Association-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 4, respecting The Dominion Life Assurance Company-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 5, to incorporate Fidelity Company of Canada-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 6, to incorporate The General Synod of the Church of England in Canada-M^. Cronyn.
Bill No. 7, respecting The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 8, respecting The James M.ac-Laren Company, Limited-Mr. Fontaine.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER; I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer notification of the election and return of George Newcombe Gordon, Esq., for the Electoral District of Peterborough, West Riding.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order, "Motions":
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, it was my
intention to move at this, the correct time, the motion of which I gave notice on Monday last relative to the amendment to the Dominion Elections Act. I have, however, conferred with my friend the leader of the Opposition, who is unable to be present just at the moment, and it has been agreed that, provided the House concurs, the motion he not gone on with now but that it be taken up later in the afternoon when the leader of the Opposition is present. I hope this is acceptable to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and to the House generally.
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN: I beg to move, seconded by Right Hon. Sir George Poster:
That the name of Mr. McDermand he added to the Select Standing Committees on Agriculture and Colonization, Miscellaneous Private Bills, and Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved
[Stage Direction]
for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The object of this Bill is to make in the present Act a slight amendement which will make it possible for Canada to adhere to the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which was instituted in 1883 and which has so for been adopted by most of the nations of the world.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to an inaccuracy in Hansard. On February 17, at page 89 I find in the report of the speech made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Gauthier) these words:
The accusation came, and X am glad to see my hon. friend the member for Chambly and Verchdres (Mr. Archambault) in his place, for he was the president of the convention when this matter was threshed out.
I was in the House when the speech was made, and I do not believe my hon. friend referred to me, because a little later on he refers to the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Gervais) in these words:
During- the special convention, which was presided over by my friend the member for Berthier (Mr. Gervais), we took congnizance of all these facts. '
I rise simply to correct this statement and to state that I never was at any convention of the Artisans, especially at the convention that whitewashed my hon. friend.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed "from Tuesday, February 22.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERT HARRISON (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the House, for I do not feel that I can add anything that would be of material benefit to what has already been so ably said by hon. members on this side of the House in connection with the important matters

that have been placed before us in the speech from the Throne.
First, I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address upon the very able manner in which they performed that duty. I would also like to say a few words in connection with the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). In listening to the speeches of hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) when he spoke of the wonderful leadership of the leader of the Opposition, who is going to blaze the way to greater things, as I am a labour man and one who was very closely associated with the Grand Trunk railway employees who went out on strike in 1910, my mind naturally went back to that time, and also to the famous resolution which was presented to the House last year by the leader of the Opposition, which is almost the same as the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition at this session, and now before the House for discussion. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the leader of the Opposition was just as insincere last year when he moved that famous resolution as he is this year in moving the amendment, and as he was when he promised the Grand Trunk Railway employees their positions back in 1910. The leader of the Opposition was Minister of Labour when the Grand Trunk strike occurred and as Minister of Labour he attempted to arbitrate between the company and the men, and after the strike had lasted for several days, on the assurance of the then Minister of Labour that the men would receive their positions back, or in other words, be reinstated in good standing, the strike was called off. And what were the results? We all know too well. Many of the men were never taken back, and many that were taken back did not receive their seniority standing. Apparently the now leader of the Opposition either betrayed the men or he did not have the ability to negotiate a proper settlement. In any event, he did not live up to his promises that if the men called off the strike he would accept the responsibility of seeing that the men got their positions back, as was the basis of the negotiations and settlement. I am informed that one of his party has been heard to remark that when the Opposition defeats the Government and the now leader of the Opposition becomes the leader of the Government, the Grand Trunk men will receive their pensions. As a matter of fact, the

only Grand Trunk employees who are not now receiving their pensions are those who failed in obtaining reinstatement by reason of the breaking of the promise given by the present leader of the Opposition. Had he at that time kept faith the pension dispute would never have arisen.
It is to be observed that the present Administration has done everything to facilitate a prompt and proper adjustment of the claims of these ex-employees, by placing in the hands of their solicitor all the information available in the files of the Department of Labour, and it has agreed that they shall have the opportunity to present their case as a claim against the Grand Trunk before the Board of Arbitration now sitting, and I have every confidence that justice will be done and that the men will receive their pensions.
Mr. Speaker, how do the issues now standing before the country affect the working man? The present Government stands for just such a measure of protection in our tariff system as will enable Canadian industries-agriculture, mining, lumbering and manufacturing-to continue to carry on to the greatest possible degree. The tariff proposals of the Opposition to the Government are that the protective principle must be eliminated; that industries that cannot meet the competition of the surplus products from the industries of the United States and the cheap labour of foreign countries must be sacrificed without any regard to what happens to the thousands of men that these industries employ. That, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree, is a fair statement of the issufe as it is presented to us.
Well, Sir, how is that going to affect the wage-earner? The industries of the province of Ontario employ around around four hundred thousand men. They use large quantities of raw material produced by other Canadian workingmen. They furnish traffic to our railways and employment to our railwaymen. They provide markets for our farmers and business for our business men. Every industry added to those we now have widens the opportunity and improves the conditions of our people. Every industry forced to close by unfair competition has just the opposite effect. How would it affect the workmen if in Ontario, for instance, the Westing-house Company, the Ford Motor Company, the United Typewriter Company, the Simonds Saw Company, the Yates Machine Company, and scores of other American
companies with branch factories in Canada, closed their doors and furnished the Canadian market from their American plants? Yet, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is keeping these industries in Canada is a moderate protective tariff. Every time the output from a Canadian industry is reduced or curtailed by the competition of imported goods, workingmen suffer. Every dollar's worth of goods imported into this country that could be legitimately produced here means taking the bread and butter from some Canadian working man's child. And yet we have public men going about this country preaching the doctrines of class warfare, with one object, and one object alone-the hope that they may enlist the support of workingmen in a movement destined to destroy their chances of earning a decent livlihood.
There is another question that has not been touched upon by many o' the previous speakers, and it is one in which I am deeply interested. It is the investigation that is being conducted by the Department of Labour into a system of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. On account of being a labour man, I1 perhaps know a great deal more of the actual conditions of the workingman than the majority of the members of the House, and I also feel I am in a better position to know just about how much the labourer can save out of his earnings after he properly cares for his family. Unemployment may arise from other causes than the loss of position. A man may become unemployed through sickness, invalidity or old age. Very few labourers are able to make provision for these contingencies and the question of making some provision by a system of state social insurance for those who through no fault of their own are unable to work whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity, sickness, invalidity, or old age is of very great importance. Such insurance would remove the, spectre of fear which now haunts the wage earner, and would make him a more contented and better citizen. I have in mind at this time, labouring men who were strong and robust when the war broke out. They were too old to go to the front, but I know for a fact that they contributed every dollar they could spare to help along the good work. Sickness has overtaken them, and they are to-day down and out, through no fault of their own. These men might have saved money had they not been so generous, but they felt

that as true Canadians they had a duty; not being able to fight themselves, they helped in every way possible the men who were fighting for them. I hope that the department's investigation will be carried on, and that we may be successful in having legislation placed upon the statute books at this session of Parliament, providing insurance of this character.
Mr. Speaker, what has made this possible, and what has this Government done for labour? The Minister of Labour, who himself was a labour man, was appointed by this Government, and he has shown to the people of Canada that he is worthy of the honourable position he now holds. In 1919 the Government of Canada established a Royal Commission presided over by Chief Justice Mathers of Winnipeg, whose duty it was to inquire into and take evidence respecting industrial conditions in Canada. Following their report, the Department of Labour invited to a conference a substantial number of representative employers and of organized labour throughout Canada, with representatives from each of the Provincial Governments. This body after going fully into the report of the Mathers Commission, appointed a committee - composed of representatives of employers and of labour. This committee endorsed the recommendation of the Mathers Commission and suggested that a careful investigation of the whole subject should be undertaken. This was done, and I am informed that our Department of Labour has been making a careful investigation and has gathered a large amount of useful information from all countries in the world that have adopted, or contemplate adopting, legislation on unemployment insurance. I am further informed that the information so gathered is being submitted to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and to the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada, which organizations are the principal representatives of employers and employees in this country. I therefore think the .Government of Canada is to be complimented upon the sane, careful methods which it has adopted in co-operation with those most intimately concerned, and that this House, may without hesitation, give hearty approval and endorsement to that portion of the speech from the Throne which indicates the policy of the Government in connection with these two most important questions, which, if solved, will tend more to stabilize industry, promote peace, and make happy citizens than anything else that could be done.
(I Mr. Harrison.]


Mr. MARIE JOSEPH DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville) :: Mr. Speaker, according to my judgment, the political atmosphere in which we live at present does not make very long speeches desirable, and I do not feel disposed to take up very much time in the remarks I have to make this afternoon. I intend to confine myself to one or two salient observations. Following an old and very appropriate custom, and emulating the example of these who have spoken before me, may I be permitted to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address on the able speches they delivered, which were in accordance with the best traditions of this House. It is hardly necessary, I fancy, to say that although I appreciate the oratorical ability of those two gentlemen I am very far from sharing in their appreciation of, and admiration for this Government.
If the newspapers are to be believed, the result of the election in Peterborough has thrown disorder, discomfort, and even confusion into the ranks of the Government to such an extent that we can expect anything at any time. This session may last three weeks, perhaps a month, perhaps longer; no one knows. Uncertainty is the state of mind of everybody at the presen* time, and I want to ask you this question, Mr. Speaker:	Under present circumstances do you believe that the members of this House should have been summoned to meet here? Is this a proper time to begin session, and can we expect anything substantial as a result of our deliberations? This government* apparently ignores the lessons of history. I am pretty sure that history will repeat itself, and it seems to me that it is unnecessary for one to have a very long political experience in order to foresee the general election which is inevitable in the near future. The government say " No" to this, but to my mind their negative assertions have no signifance whatever. Laws of nature, if I may say so, are above the will and the desire of any government. There is, in the situation with which we are confronted, something that is unprecedented, and that is the unanimity of the newspapers friendly to the Government in admitting the weakness of this Administration and advising it to give up without further ado. I think that the attitude of the newspapers friendly to the Government, after the election in Peterborough, was something unique, and the weakness of this Government must be very apparent since it is freely admitted even by its best friends. Under such circumstances, there-

fore, I cannot believe that this Government will not understand at last that its duty is undoubtedly indicated. Everyone is looking for a general election, even its best friends. Let us, therefore, have an election. Let the government give up that old bluff which they have paraded on so many occasions and which certain newspapers are meanly repeating, to the effect that even the Liberal Opposition does not favour a general election at the present time.
I do not believe that there is another example in the history of this country of a government so much discredited and disliked as the present administration. But there is a reason for that. We should keep in mind the fact that this is the first time that we have had in this country a government of usurpers. This expression, I know, has frequently been used lately, but I think it is very appropriate. The Administration, so far as I can see, will go down with humiliation and it will deserve-to use the expressive popular phrase-" what is coming to it."
Let us remember under what circiimr stances the Unionist Government was formed. A certain group of Liberal members decided to sever their connections with their leader on account of the war because they differed with him as to the nature of the contribution that Canada should make to the conduct of the war. They joined the Government of the day. But although they retired from their party, they solemnly declared that their retirement was but temporary, and they asserted emphatically that Liberals they were and Liberals they would remain, and that as soon as the war was over they would return to their party and stand by its principles and ideals. Some of them were men of conviction and sincerity; they fulfilled their promise and came back to their party. But, Mr. Speaker, what can we say of those who concluded a permanent alliance with their new friends on the strength of nothing better or more plausible than the motto: "What we have we hold?" Are the attractions of power then so strong? The election of 1917 was held under exceptional circumstances and under abnormal conditions. It was a war-time election conducted under a war-time electoral law. The platform of the Unionist party contained only one plank, "Win the War," and that war-cry was intended to appeal to every one irrespective of political affiliations. Some special and most extraordinary laws were passed in order to give the right to vote even to foreigners and
to deprive some citizens of this country of the same right. There was a special selection of electors, and the law was so framed as to permit the manipulation of ballots, and naturally that law was put into practice by means of cipher and other devices, with this result, that many of the hon. members sitting in this House are not the choice of the residents of the ridings they are supposed to represent. And I cannot give a better example, a more palpable and striking example, than the hon. gentleman who spoke before me. I have here the Canadian Parliamentary Guide and according to it these were the votes cast in the constituency of Nipissing at the last election:	Harrison, 4,879
Lapierre, 6,218. About thirteen hundred votes for the hon. gentleman were found outside of the riding and he was declared elected by a majority of forty-four.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Marie Joseph Demers: Proceeding, Mr. Speaker, to consider the circumstances under which the election of 1917 was conducted, let me say that a large number of votes, especially in Ontario, were obtained under false pretences, and it seems to me that under such circumstances it is impossible for a man of ordinary intelligence not to perceive the exceptional character of such an election, its temporary character, and the necessity for another general election at the earliest possible date after the war. The Government have failed to appreciate that fact, and that is the principal reason for the unrest which exists in this country and which manifests itself at every opportunity. Mr. Speaker, there can be no relief from the situation until constitutional government is restored-that is to say as long as the people of Canada are not satisfied that they have a government which has their confidence and which is supported by a majority of regularly chosen representatives. This satisfaction the people naturally cannot obtain except through a general election.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, during his political journey throughout the country, was naturally very generous and very charitable. He described his opponents of all classes as Bolsheviki, disturbers, dangerous and disloyal elements, and indulged in other similar moderate epithets, but, Mr. Speaker, I am very' sure that all those who are listening to the Prime Minister-


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. member will be kind enough to favour

the House with a quotation establishing what he has stated.


Marie Joseph Demers: I have the quotation but I think the Prime Minister will admit that I have stated just about what he said.


Arthur Meighen: Nothing of the kind.


Mr. LAPOINTE :: Quote from the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We will give the proof.


Arthur Meighen: It is just a repetition of misrepresentation already made about a thousand times.


Marie Joseph Demers: I think the Prime Minister should address his reproach to the newspapers. I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister was speaking about Bolsheviki, disturbers, and all such elements, the great majority of his hearers thought he was trying to give an adequate description of the group over which he presides. Because all those who were listening to the Prime Minister knew that throughout its whole life his administration has evidenced a continued contempt for order and for constitutional rule. His administration has been, and still is, the reign of arbitrary authority. Why should we recapitulate what is well known? When I speak about the Government I am referring to the administrations from 1914 to date, without any distinction between them, because even if it is true that the visible head of the previous government has disappeared we feel that the spirit is still there and more formidable than ever since it is more intimately associated than ever with the visible head of the present Administration. Let me say in passing that nothing was less surprising to me than the appointment of the right hon. gentleman to the position of Prime Minister of Canada. It was only what we might have expected. This nomination is absolutely in accordance with the evidence of the last seven years. Nevertheless I -must say that it is a nomination which is keenly resented by a large section of the people of the Dominion. Personally, when everybody is urging the necessity of unity and harmony in this country I think there could not be a worse move than the appointment to the office of Prime Minister of a man who will always be an element of division and dissension. Do not ask me why. The Prime Minister speaking about Quebec said somewhere that he had never uttered a word against that province. Would he swea'r to that?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: He would not dare to . do it.


Marie Joseph Demers: Let me tell the Prime Minister that in Quebec, as in other provinces, words have less importance than facts and doings; the first minister must deem us very credulous when he comes and asks the question "Who can say that 1 ever uttered a word against Quebec?" The Prime Minister says he never said a word against Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Marie Joseph Demers: Sir, the right hon. gentleman knows that Quebec does not like him. He said so when in the province last year. How does he know that, since, accord ing to his own conscience, there is no justification at all for the attitude of hostility towards him on the part of Quebec? Die anybody tell him that, or is it only an impression of his? Let me inform the Prime Minister that his psychological appreciation of the attitude of Quebec against him is correct, and he should be the last man to come and ask why? In my opinion such an attitude on his part is an aggravation of the offence. Let me tell him that in Quebec, while we can easily forgive and forget words, we forgive but never forget facts. At all events I am sure that I represent the sentiments of the people of that province when I say that we are waiting for an election and when the time comes the people of Quebec will do their share, in conjunction with the people of the other provinces of Canada, in overthrowing this Government.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I should restrict myself to the question of the necessity of a general election, for that is the only question of interest to our people, and undoubtedly they all desire a general election.


Mr. McMASTER:: Except the Government.


Marie Joseph Demers: No one class of the population is satisfied with this Administration. Look at the farmers, the returned soldiers, the working men, the consumers-among one and all of them you will find the same dissatisfaction. On the restoration of peace there was necessity in this country, as in the other belligerent countries, for rigid economy and a ruthless cutting down of the expenses of administration. What happened. We entered into the policy of public ownership-proved to be disastrous

everywhere else; we became shipbuilders; we increased our military expenditure by two-thirds over what it had been under prewar conditions; we organized a very expensive navy, without any occasion for it;
and as far as the expenses of the
3	p.m. League of Nations are concerned, we are told to-day that Canada is considered one of the greatest powers of the world, and the Government is satisfied with its work. But, Mr. Speaker, what could we expect of a Government which has been acustomed to uncontrolled extravagance and waste during a period of four years and a half of warfare? This is one of the obvious reasons why the Government should have understood that it was its duty to limit its activity strictly to the purposes for which it had been chosen.
We are told that there will be an Imperial Conference in London this year. In that connection I want to ask this question: Who ever received a mandate from the people to go to that Conference and speak for Canada? And who will have the audacity to go there and speak for us?
To my mind, Sir, the Government by its continuance in office is assuming a terrible and dangerous responsibility, and I am pretty sure that when the time comes it will realize the extent of the anger of the people.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton) :: depths in order to befog the issue as much as possible.
Before applying myself to the important questions mentioned in His Excellency's speech, I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. gentleman who so acceptably moved the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the Throne. I congratulate the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Mclsaac) on the very eloquent literary contribution he made to the pages of Hansard. It does him credit, and it reflects honour upon his constituents who are responsible for his presence in this House. I trust that the hon. gentleman may survive the vicissitudes of the next election in order to come back here and tell hon. members more about the sounding sea and the thunder of its surf. I would also compliment the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) on the very excellent maiden speech which he delivered in seconding the motion. He well merits the very many complimentary remarks showered upon him by hon. members from both sides of the House. He has a clear, resonant voice and an ability to marshal his facts so that they carry conviction. He bears the impress of a polished speaker, and we welcome him here as a decided addition to the debating powers of this assembly.
I would be remiss in my duty as a member of Parliament and a Canadian did I not give some expression of my deep appreciation of the great services rendered to Canada and to the Empire by the illustrious gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) who so recently relinquished the office of Prime Minister. I am one of those-and the number is large-who believe that men are raised up by Providence to guide the destinies of a people in the hour of their dire distress and danger. It was by no mere accident or blind chance that our ex-Prime Minister was returned as leader of the Government in the election of 1911. It was by no mere accident or through no blind chance that the ministry of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier appealed to the country in the mid-period of their parliamentary term in the expectation of getting a snatch victory at the polls. Hon. gentlemen opposite may not agree with me in seeing the hand of Providence in that event; they will probably say that it was an instance of the great statesmanlike powers and political foresight of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). But the ex-Prime Minister was the one man in Canada possessed of the

intellectual attainments, the prophetic vision, the determination of purpose necessary to the guiding of this country through the intricacies of international diplomacy during the war. He was the one man in Canada possessed of the qualities of head and heart and body to enable him to withstand the great mental and physical strain during that conflict, to bear up under the tremendously increased burdens of state, and to stay in harness until the victory was won. I regret as much as any man can regret the disability which compelled him to retire. The Canadian people may not be willing to accord to him that measure of honour to which his great services justly entitle him, but I have confidence that the future historian, in summing up the achievements of the war, will accord to Sir Robert Borden a foremost place amongst the great statesmen of the British Empire.
Prime Ministers come and Prime Ministers go; long live our Prime Minister. I offer my heartiest congratulations to the present leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) on his elevation to the highest position in the gift of the Canadian people. He was selected on account of his personal charm and his commanding ability as a Parliamentarian. He is a real statesman and will give a good account of his stewardship to the people of this country. Since Confederation we have been blessed with good Prime Ministers. I am speaking now without regard to politics; a man's politics have nothing more to do with his attributes as a man than his religious creed has to do with his qualities as a Christian-the qualities are inherent in the man himself. The hon. Alexander Mackenzie, Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Thompson and Sir Wilfrid Laurier were all men of high ideals, of great executive ability, and of unimpeachable charater. Our present Prime Minister will rank high when compared with these men; he will do honour to the Canadian people while receiving honour at their hands.
In considering the speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the many important issues mentioned there as the basis of proposed legislation at this session of Parliament. In that connection I would like to make a few remarks with regard to the speech made by the leader of the Opposition. I must say that I was disappointed in that speech; it was not worthy of the leader of a great party aspiring to the Premiership of this great country. He failed, in his two hours' fusillade delivered with the speed of

a quick-firing maxim gun, to touch upon one of the subjects mentioned in His Excellency's speech. He had no criticism to offer of the record of the Government and of the policy as laid down. Assuming that silence gives assent, we must say that the hon. leader of the Opposition is in accord with the policies and with the record of the Government.
. On the -first page of the speech from the Throne I find a reference to the prosperity of the Canadian people, the general unrest throughout the country and the world and the contraction of business, and also a reference to taxes. These questions are apparently of no importance to the leader of the Opposition; they sink into insignificance when compared with his own ambition to be leader of the Government. On the second page we find mention of the unemployment situation-that it is worldwide. Mr. Speaker, the unemployment at the present time-and I am speaking now with regard to my own section of the country-is no greater than it was in the winter of 1914 and in preceding winters. On account of the material prosperity which the people enjoyed during the war, most of the labour sections were able to take care of themselves out of the savings which they had laid by during that period.
I am willing to admit that there are men who, through circumstances over which they had no control, have found it difficult to obtain the necessaries of life for themselves and for their families. There are others, however, who live up to all they can make, no matter how much it is; who have no idea of thrift, and who are always in want if they are not at work. A system has been instituted under which, through the assistance of local governments and municipalities, these people can get relief.
Reference is made in the speech from the Throne to the matter of unemployment insurance. I compliment the Government on its courage in bringing this question up. I look upon it as a rather dangerous question and one that must be carefully looked into. Any action taken in that regard must be surrounded by every possible_ safeguard. A system of unemployment insurance might be easily abused; if a good Act is not brought in, the result might be the discouragement of thrift and the encouragement of indolence. I would have thought that the leader of the Opposition, who has studied labour questions and who poses as an expert in these matters, would be able to give some useful and constructive suggestions to the Government with regard to
this important question, particularly in view of the fact that he must have gained some useful information while in the United States during the period of the war, at a time when our Government was sweating blood, one might say, in an effort to save this country for future generations. But did the hon. gentleman even mention the subject? No. Mr. Speaker, it was of no importance; he brushed it aside as he would the dust from his desk. He has no interest whatever in the trials of the working people, in their efforts to gain a livelihood and to keep their wives and children in comfort during the time of unemployment.
The next question, which is a very important subject and one that must be handled with gloves, is that of Old Age Pensions, and I again compliment the Government on its courage in bringing this matter before Parliament. It must be handled carefully, as it is a subject that may be very easily abused if legislation should be enacted. There are many people who are not able to take care of themselves and who have not sufficient saved from their earnings to take care of them in their old age, so that such legislation is probably necessary, although there are other countries in which it is more necessary than in this great country of Canada where everyone has an equal chance and there is every opportunity for people to make a living and save. This question, however, is an important one; the Government is investigating it, and it will be brought before Parliament at this session.
Yet it also is brushed aside by the leader of the Opposition as a matter of no importance; it pales into insignificance when compared with his ambition to be Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada. In his speech, he said that the question of the mandate of the Government transcended in importance all other questions; that until it was settled, questions of lesser importance would need be delayed, and,all the subjects mentioned in the Speech from the Throne are regarded by him as being of less importance than his personal interests. Was there ever such a statement made by a leader of the Opposition in any Parliament of the world, that he placed his personal interests above tjie interests of the people and the State?
Another question of great interest to the people of this country is in regard to the League of Nations. The representatives sent by Canada to the Assembly of the League have already spoken on that

question, and I wish to compliment those gentlemen upon the very excellent way in which they looked after the interests of Canada and, indeed, of the American continent. They deserve the praiseworthy remarks made of their actions by the people of the United States. They Were, one might say, the spokesmen of the whole American continent; they held the name of Canada high in the councils of the world, and they gained for themselves a very enviable international reputation.
We come to the consideration of the tariff, the revision of the tariff, that question which was of so much importance last year, but which, according to my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King), is of no importance rfow. The leader of the Opposition, at a meeting held in Milton in August of last year, made an appeal to the people and particularly to the farmers. He mentioned on that occasion that his fiscal policy was a tariff for the producer and the consumer. I wonder if any gentleman on either side of the House can tell us what that really means. I am quite satisfied that the audience to which he was speaking in the county of Halton did not understand it. It was a statement made purposely to mislead. He had with him, in order to convey two impressions to the people, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and everybody knows what the hon. member stands for with regard to a fiscal policy. The leader of the Opposition said:
It is not a question of free trade or protection. It is a tariff for consumers) and producers.
The leader of the Opposition intended to convey two ideas to the people of that county. Like Santa Claus at Christmas, he had something for everybody. The leader of the Opposition is the greatest political Santa Claus this country has ever had. To those people who were inclined to favour protection or low tariff, he said: "Here, you can have protection; you can have a moderate tariff; this is a tariff for consumers and producers." The hon. member for Brome could give the impression to the free traders that this meant free trade, and consequently everybody should be pleased and should vote for the hon. member for Brome and his leader. That did not quite satisfy the audience, because he was speaking to hard-headed Scotchmen, Englishmen and Irishmen by whom that county is settled, the descendants of men who came from the old land many generations ago. They were not easily carried away by the piffle which the leader of the 
Opposition gave them-it did not go down and it was not long afterwards that the hon. member for Brome was asked to return and explain the conditions and the position. He went to the town of Oakville, a short distance from Milton and made a speech there. That speech was not reported in the press so that I did not hear what he said; but I heard that the hon. member travelled something like 400 miles to address an audience of fifty people. My hon. friend can corroborate that, as he is in a better position than I to know whether it is true or not. I might say that the speech delivered at Milton by the leader of the Opposition was practically the same as the speeches he delivered at Newmarket and Toronto; he has it off by heart; he can stand up in this House and it will go off of its own volition. He said, speaking in Toronto on the 16th of August last:
We have ini Ottawa, as we hadi in this province, a Government which has undertaken to perpetuate itself in office without any reference whatever to the wishes of the people, or without permitting any expression of the popular will.
He means to say that the Government of Sir William Hearst was perpetuating itself in office without asking the will of the people. We know that he did stay a little longer in office on account of the conditions of the war, but that was by unanimous consent of both parties in the legislature. He was not using autocratic power any more than we are in Ottawa. But the leader of the Opposition continued:
We have neither a representative Parliament nor a responsible Government. We have an autocratie executive usurping authority, exercising political control, regardless alike of constitutional procedure and the first principles of Government in a free and self-groveming- country.
I think few men in the Dominion of Canada will deny that Canada is a free and self-governing country, and there are in the Dominion not many men who will say to-day that the present Government is exercising autocratic power. That is something that exists only in the mind of the leader of the Opposition and his followers, and they have reiterated it so often that they have commenced to believe it. The leader of the Opposition, in stating his position with regard to the resignation of the Government, did so with such vehemence and show of indignation that I was almost persuaded that he meant what he said, but in listening to his followers afterwards I came to the conclusion that he was not sincere in his demand.

Why should he he? At Milton he made an appeal to the farmers and frankly stated:	We, myself and the Liberal party,
cannot possibly defeat this Government, and we ask an alliance with the farmers, the labour men and the returned soldiers to assist us in turning out this Government. Mr. Speaker, what would an alliance with the Agrarian party mean? The leader of the Opposition has a tariff for the producer and the consumer, and if he goes to the country he has no hope of returning here with a majority sufficient to enable him to carry on without the support of the Agrarian party to his left. What would that mean? Would it mean that if the leader of the Opposition became the leader of the Government we would have a tariff for the producer and tihe consumer? If he has the assistance of the Agrarian group in forming a 'government in order to carry on, it will mean free trade, nothing more or less. He would be compelled to accede to the wishes of the leader of the Agrarian party, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who is frankly an out-and-out free trader.
I do not think the hon. gentleman will deny it. I do not see him in the House at this moment, but I have here a couple of clippings from speeches he made in the West, which I think will be quite conclusive that he is a free trader. Speaking at a convention of the United Farmers of Alberta on January 26, 1920, he is reported by the Grain Growers' Guide of February 11, 1920, to have said (pp. 56-59) :
Now the farmers of this country, by pronouncing upon the Questions, have stated their belief that the principle of protection is not only economically unsijund but morally indefensible, is it not time we were considering a change in regard to it?
Then in his speech of November 19, 1919, as reported in the issue of the Regina Leader of November 20, Mr. Crerar said:
If people want to wear diamonds and silks and have the money for it, at this stage of our country's advancement, I have no objection to it, but I do say this: that if we.tax them with a customs tariff we must levy an excise tax on the home manufacturers. I would absolutely root out the principle of protection in our customs tariff.
Surely the leader of the Agrarian party will not deny what he said on those two occasions. He is frankly a free trader, and if the leader of the Opposition is returned without sufficient majority to carry on, and must depend upon the support given him by the Agrarian group to form a government, we must have
free trade. The hon. member for Marquette could not possibly deny the western provinces what they have been asking for, and the policy upon which they have returned him to this House. If he did, he would betray the farmers of the West, he would lose his position in the Grain Growers Grain Company, and would have to withdraw himself from the political life of Canada forever. So he would stand firmly by the principle of free trade, and the leader of the Opposition is paving the way by which he can grant free trade to this country if such a condition should arise. He wants to be able to say to the people of Canada: I have carried out my pre-election promises. Did I not tell you it would be a tariff for the consumer and the producer? Of course, that is a free trade tariff.
The leader of the Opposition has taken a good deal of comfort out of the results of the by-election in West Peterborugh. I might say he has been cackling over that one victory like a chicken over its first egg. Was there ever such an egg. Was there ever such a victory? The hon. gentleman's supporter who was elected in West Peterborough is not yet in this House, but he will come here as a minority candidate. He was elected by about one-third of the vote of that constituency. If that election tells us anything,'it tells us of the futility of the multiplicity of candidates and of what I might call the group system of government. Otherwise it tells us practically nothing. The Government had a majority of the votes cast in endorsation of their fiscal policy, but the leader of the Opposition says that that was not an issue in that election or in any other by-election. He says that the only issue is the mandate of the Government.
At nearly all the meetings the leader of the Opposition has addressed throughout the Dominion, he has dwelt very much upon what you might call his Liberalism. It is almost a religious faith with the hon. gentleman. He harps back to the old days of Liberalism many years ago, when Liberalism really meant something, when it really had some principles behind it; but it has no principles behind it to-day under the leadership of the hon. gentleman. He has evidently forgotten that the principles of Liberalism which he announces to-day in this House are nothing else but a moth-eaten bunch of contradictions, inconsistencies, and deceit. The hon. gentleman has really missed his calling. He might pose as a first-class actor in a dime museum. He

could pose with a wig and beard as Ananias, and if he poses as well as he acts the part, he will be a success.
The Liberals on this side of the House did not leave their party; they took their party with them when they crossed the floor. On more than one occasion the Liberals on this side of the House have been invited to recross the floor and take up their old allegiance. We had an invitation a few days ago from the hon. member for Brome, handed out in a fine manner. That versatile gentleman can do it very well indeed. Then, in 1918, we had an invitation from the leader of the Opposition of that day (Mr. McKenzie), when he announced to this House and to the followers who had wandered away from the camp that the light was in the window and the latch string on the outside of the door. That light, Mr. Speaker, may be designated the light that failed.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice) :: A good many came back.


Robert King Anderson: One or two political moths were attracted by the light, but the great majority of the Liberal Unionists who seceded from this side of the House have camped upon the trail uncertain whether to proceed or build a shack of their own. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) now looks very critically at the meagre fare spread in the Liberal kitchen, and has decided along with his followers to stay where they are until their own provisions are exhausted. They may then gradually go on into the Liberal camp.
The "mandate of the Government." It was the great theme of the address of the leader of the Opposition. What is a mandate anyway? Is it something you can eat that it should be exhausted so soon? The members of the Opposition must be famishing for something from the Government benches or they would not ask the question so often and reiterate it over and over again. There is constitutional authority for the conduct of this Government. If you consult the British North America Act of 1867 you will find, in section 50, ample constitutional authority for this or any other Government of this Dominion of Canada to take charge of the affairs of the country for a period of five years unless previously dissolved by the Governor-General. That is the only clause with regard to the constitutional authority of Parliament to sit for five years. The lea-

der of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) mentioned in his speech in Toronto that if there was constitutional authority for the Government of 1911 to proceed to the country, the same authority could now be invoked by this Government. Any one will admit that; but there was no necessity for the Government of 1911 to go to the country; they were not compelled to do so. They went of their own volition, thinking they would secure a record vote from the people. But the people did not support them in their contention; they voted strongly against them at the time, showing clearly that they did not look favourably upon the policy which the government was then advocating.
In section 51, sub-section 5, it is provided that every ten years a census shall be taken and a redistribution made every decade after the year 1871, which redistribution shall be made by the Parliament then constituted and shall take effect when the term of that Parliament expires. If the leader of the Government should accede to the demand, of the Opposition and go to the country at this time, redistribution could not take place before the expiration of the term of the Parliament then elected and would consequently be delayed for five years. As the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has so well pointed out, representation would then be denied the people in Western Canada and in such other territories where they are entitled to greater representation than they have at present.
Any Government that could be guilty of such an act and return here in violation of the principles of the British North America Act would, in very truth, be usurpers. It would be an autocratic act to prevent the people of Western and Eastern Canada from securing until the expiration of five years, after the date of the following election, the greater representation to which they are entitled. I do not believe that the leader of the Opposition can be sincere in his declarations; otherwise he would not take such a stand. If it should happen that the Government were forced to the country by the Opposition, the papers in Canada would not care to print what the Western people would say, for it would not be printable.
Now, with regard to the question of mandates. If the Government has a mandate, then the individual members of parliament have mandates also. In 1917 every member elected to support the Government had a mandate from the people to support the Unionist Administration not only during the

war but until the termination of the parliamentary period. Undoubtedly, the war was the main issue. There is no denying that fact. But it is news to me to hear the leader of the Opposition state that when the war was over it was incumbent on the Government to go to the country. I fought in that election, and I never heard the statement made, nor did it ever occur to me, that I was elected only for the period of the war. No one knew how long the war would last; no one knew how soon it would be concluded victoriously to the allies; and it was therefore absolutely impossible to say that the people of the country intended that the Government should hold office only for the period of the war. Nothing was further from their minds than such a supposition.
A mandate from the people is a command to do something; it is an order from the people for the Government to carry out its platform submitted to them. This Government has proceeded to do so, and to bring to fruition all the aims and objectives outlined in their platform; and I doubt whether there ever was a Government at Ottawa that more faithfully performed its duty in that respect. As I have said, every individual member elected to support the Unionist party had a .mandate from his constituency to support the Government so long as it remained in office.
Hon. gentlemen who have seceded from this side and gone across the floor could take only one honourable stand. When they did not see eye to eye with their constituents, when they decided to abandon their allegiance to the present Government and cross to the side benches, they should have resigned their seats and obtained a new mandate from the people. They are the ones that are betraying the people, and not the Government. The hon. member for Marquette (Hon. Mr. Crerar) was the greatest sinner in this respect. He practically started a trek across the road, and it was his duty, as leader of the Agrarian party, to go back to his constituents and ask them for a new mandate, and confirmation of the position he has taken as leader of that party across the floor.
What does the Liberal party care for mandates? Let us go back to the election of 1896. The late Laurier administration, on the issue of tariff for revenue only, appealed to the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other and circularized them continuously throughout the election for support on that issue, promising that if they were returned to power they would abolish the protective policy and give to the people a tariff for revenue purposes only. They were elected on that issue; they received a mandate from the people to put that policy into effect. Did they do so? , Mr. Speaker, history tells us that they did not; nevertheless they did not resign. Did they receive any mandate from the people of Canada to keep a protective policy in force in this country? They did not; yet in spite of that they remained in office for fifteen years, violating the first principles, according to their own views, of democratic institutions. And now they have the temerity to charge this Government, which is carrying out faithfully and fully its mandate received from the people, with usurpation of democratic power.
The hon. members of the Opposition have a great respect for the memory of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier; so have I. I regarded him as a great Canadian, a great statesman, and a man of unimpeachable character; and I think that what he said should have had some influence on the opinions of Opposition members with regard to the attitude they took in 1896. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who is in his seat today, was Finance Minister of that Government and received a mandate from the people to wipe out the protective principle from the statute books and instead to institute a tariff for revenue only. But he refused to carry out the pledge of his party; he denied to the people the right they claimed and kept the protective policy in force.
Why did the hon. gentleman do so? With other members of the Government who were in office at that time he sounded the manufacturing interests, what are called the "big interests," and found that they would not stand for a reduction of the tariff. The then leader of the Government, with whom was associated the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) accordingly capitulated to those "big interests." And yet these hon. gentlemen have the audacity to say to-day that the present Government is controlled by the same big interests. Mr. Speaker, it is the greatest piffle that has ever been uttered in this House, and I am surprised at hon. gentlemen opposite occupying so much time in dilating upon such petty issues. They have been raising a clamour all through the country and during the present debate on
iREVISED EDITION

this question. Of course, we have always had clamourers but we should not take them too seriously. In 1833 there were such clamourers and, speaking in the Senate of the United States, Daniel Webster referred to them as follows:
There are persons who constantly clamor. They complain of oppression, and pernicious influence of accumulated' wealth. They cry out loudly against all banks and corporations and all means by which small capitalists become united in order to produce important and beneficial results. They carry on a mad hostility against all established institutions. They would choke the fountain of industry and dry all streams. In a country of unbounded liberty they clamor against oppression. In a country of perfect equality, they would move heaven and earth against privilege and monopoly. In a country where property is more evenly divided than anywhere else, they rend the air scouting agrarian doctrines. In a country where wages are high beyond parallel, they would teach the laborer that he is but an oppressed slave.
That was the dictum of Daniel Webster in 1833. We have such clamourers in the Dominion to-day and we will have them so long as Canada is in existence. In the course of time we shall have forgotten the clamourers of 1920 and 1921, but we will always remember those sane Canadians who stood firm in support of constituted authority and of a progressive administration of public affairs in the Dominion. The leader of the Opposition has the audacity to ask the Prime Minister by what right and by what warrant he intends to rule this country. I tell him that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are ruling Canada by the warrant of the loyal Canadian citizens who stood faithfully by their country and fought for it day and night throughout four and a half years of the most stupendous conflict in the history of the world. By virtue of that right and that warrant they are entitled to the support of every man in this House, and they are entitled to the support of Canadians who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government in conserving Canada to Canadians in order that the leader of the Opposition might have a country to come back to and that he might have the opportunity to assist in advancing the progress of this country throughout the years of peace which we hope are ahead of us.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker-



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT

Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman per-

mit me, please, for a moment? If the present time would be agreeable to the leader of the Opposition, I would like now to return to the order of Motions, with the consent of the House, so that we might take up the motion of which I gave notice on Tuesday. It occurred to me that possibly my hon. friend would otherwise take up the time between now and six o'clock.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I think it would be proper for the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres to move the adjournment of the debate.


Joseph Archambault: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.	[DOT]
Motion agree to.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move the Motion of which I gave notice on Tuesday, to the effect that the Order of the House making the debate on the Address the exclusive duty of the House until disposed of be varied to the extent of permitting Bill No. 2 to be proceeded with by this House to a conclusion. I have already given the House . the reasons why I make this motion. The necessity for this Bill being proceeded with is to enable its provisions to take effect in time to be put into operation so that it may be possible for the referendum to- be held in Ontario on the date fixed, and obviate any further necessity of its postponement. I want to explain, so that there will be no misunderstanding, that this could only be gone on -with, under the rules, by unanimous consent, but the leader of the Opposition not having seen his way, when I spoke to him last Friday to assure unanimous consent, I took the precaution to move to vary the rule. Consequently, I simply appear before the House asking that the Rule be varied by the will of the majority.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: As my right hon. friend has said, the purpose of his motion is to enable the Government to proceed with the Bill which has come to this House from the Senate providing for an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act, 1919, so as to permit a referendum to be taken in the province of Ontario in the course of the next month or two at a less cost than would be involved if the vote were to be taken under the Elections Act as it stands at present. I think I am right in saying that if this Bill, which has come to us from the Senate, were not carried, its failure to pass would not prevent the referendum being taken; it would not lead, as my right hon. friend

intimated on Monday, to the disfranchisement of any person in the matter of that referendum, nor would it necessarily involve any delay in the taking of the referendum. All that it would involve would be an additional expense of some $300,000 in the cost of the preparation of the necessary lists.
As I interpret the circumstance it means that, through the lack of foresight on the part of the Government last session in anticipating a possibility of this kind, if the Bill does not pass the country will have to suffer an additional expense of $300,000. Now it is certainly not the desire of any of us on this side of the House to cause the public to suffer any additional burden of taxation through neglect on the part of the Administration, and, as I see it, that would be the only effect of our refusing to ' permit the Government to make the change desired in a matter of procedure.
There might be one other consequence. Our action in refusing to make the change suggested would be deliberately misinterpreted throughout the country; the people would be led to believe that in some way the Opposition were averse to allowing an expression of opinion within a certain time on a matter of public interest. We certainly desire to give every opportunity for an expression of opinion to any part of the community on a matter of public interest. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to oppose this resolution.
One point that I wish to make perfectly clear, however, is this: We would not for one moment consent to the motion of my right hon. friend if in any way our action in so doing were likely to be interpreted as being prejudicial to the force of the amendment that is before the House at the present time, and which declares want of confidence in the Government as the view held by hon. gentlemen sitting on this side. With the distinct understanding, therefore, that our action in consenting to allow my right hon. friend to proceed will not in any way be construed, either in the House or out of it, as prejudicing the force of the motion of want of confidence in the Government which is now before the Chamber I am quite agreeable that my right hon. friend's motion shall pass.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to say a word
anent the remarks of the hon. the leader of the Opposition before the motion carries, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had made it very clear when I first moved the motion that the reason the motion intervenes and that this Bill is necessary is not because
16i
the previous Act was insufficient in the circumstances, but that until at the very eve of the passing of the Act or just afterwards it had not been called to the attention of the Government that were a plebiscite to be held in the year 1920 there woulf be this extensive disfranchisement of the soldiers. It is because that circumstance was brought to the attention of the Government, and for that reason alone, that the postponement took place, and it is in order to save expense in providing a new list that this Bill is introduced. There is nothing extraordinary about it at all.
I understand that the leader of the Opposition asks from me a covenant that his acceding to this motion-which, by the way is not necessary, unless his acceding to it would be required to obtain a majority of Parliament, which I think far from likely *-shall not be construed as detracting from the force of the amendment now being pressed by the Opposition. I have never been able to see how his acceding to this motion could affect the force of the amendment-if it has any force. Certainly I do not intend to use it as detracting from the force of the amendment because I do not think it does detract, and, in fact, I never thought the amendment had very much force to begin with. We all know why the amendment was moved, and I do not think the country is going to be misled because we now interrupt the proceedings to take care of some useful matter of legislation. The country is 'not going to be misled by that consideration from fully grasping what the entire idea of the amendment before the House is, namely, to try to group a body of different opinions which cannot be grouped except under an amendment that calls for their being in power instead of us.


Hon. W. S. FEILDING (Shelburne and Queens) :: Mr. Speaker, the intimation of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) that the Government rushed the Franchise Bill through last session without knowing what they were doing is one which we should all be ready to accept. There is a point, however, to which I would like to draw attention. If this is a purely formal, non-contentious matter, I do not see any reason why we should not allow the motion to be made, although it is a very unusual departure from the customary procedure. But I notice in the morning papers a telegram from Toronto-and I may say that I have no in-4 p.m. terest in the Bill one way or the other-that the Bill which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) is intro-

during, is objected to by the temperance people of the country. If we are going to set aside the debate on the address to start a wrangle on this Bill, I question the wisdom of such a course; but if the Bill is purely non-contentious, I quite see the reason for making good the blunders of my right hon. friend, and we are ready to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie (Solicitor General) Bill No. 2 to amend the Dominion Elections Act, was read tjie second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Ontario: Canada Temperance Act vote:
Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think, Mr. Chairman, before you take up the sub-sections I will ask that the Committee do now rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, I take this course because an amendment will have to be made to the Bill as it has passed the Senate, this amendment being requested by the various parties interested, and I think they are all agreed upon it.


Jacques Bureau: By whom?


Hugh Guthrie: By the parties who are asking that the amendment should be made.


Jacques Bureau: What parties?


Hugh Guthrie: One is the Ontario
Referendum Committee, the other is the Liberty League; I think those are the only two. I believe the amendment that they propose is merely one which goes to the appointment of scrutineers, and there will be agreement on it; but the amendment has not yet been received by me, and I would therefore ask that the Committee now report progress and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.	,
Progress reported.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Mclsaac, for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, a regretful occurrence, whereby the courteous words uttered by the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) last Thursday were met by something akin to

an impertinence on the part of the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen) precludes me from congratulating him on his attainment to high offices lest I should be willing to take the risk of being the subject of a similar sharpness.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Joseph Archambault: I am happy,
however, to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address for the most interesting speeches they have delivered. Indeed, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie) upon the lofty remarks he made regarding unity and harmony in . this country. The hon. gentleman evidently felt that it was the least he was bound to say, since the Prime Minister, who declares on every platform that he has a new love for Quebec and the French speaking people, had seen fit to deviate this year from the usual custom of having the reply to the Address seconded in the French language. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that time will not permit me to answer the funeral oration that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) has delivered on the already cold body of the Government, but I should like to correct a remark made by my hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Harrison) regarding the pensions of the Grand Trunk employees. My hon. friend, if I understood him aright, tried to cast an aspersion on the sincerity of the hon. the leader of the Opposition regarding those employees. My hon. friend is to-day much more deeply concerned about the welfare of the Grand Trunk employees than he was when the Grand Trunk legislation was passed and when the hon. the leader of the Opposition presented a motion with regard to the Grand Trunk bill in the following terms:
That this Bill be not now read a third1 time but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the same by adding the following section:
Any right or interest of any employee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company existing in the pensions fund prior to the strike of the Company's employees which occurred in July, 1910, is hereby declared not to have been affected by such strike or any circumstance or condition arising out of or in connection therewith.
This motion was presented to the House on Friday, April 23, 1920. In looking over the list of members who voted I fail to see the name of the hon. member for Nipissing. If I remember well, instead of voting for the employees of the Grand Trunk on that

occasion, he did the aeroplane act and flew out of the room.
The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, sins by omission. True it contains a somewhat clumsy attempt on the part of the adviser to His Excellency to draw into this debate the question of the tariff, which should be discussed when the Budget speech is brought down. But it is so clear a repetition of the campaign of the Prime Minister last fall in an dffort to becloud the real issue before the people- that is, whether or not this Government has the right to remain in office-it is so clear an attempt to prevent discussion on most momentous questions that I was not surprised to see in the Speech from the Throne a reference to the tariff. The word is: "Shut off all discussion on perilous questions, and becloud the issue as was done in 1911 and in 1917." But, as we say in French, the hon. Prime Minister "a eompte sans ses hotes."
The amendment to the Address calls for a dissolution of the House. I should only be repeating arguments that have already been brought before the House by previous speakers were I to read articles which were written or cite speeches which were made during the election of 1917 to prove that at that time there was only one issue before the people, the question of the conduct of the war, that all other important questions were put aside for the moment, and that whenever we tried to discuss them with the electors in our different constituencies, this same answer came every time: "This is not the time to discuss these questions. This is a war election, and when the war is over the Government will resign and go to the country and we will then discuss all these important questions in the interests of the people.' I may be permitted however, Mr. Speaker, to quote a brief extract from an article published in that now famous paper known as "Knots and Lashings," supervised by the Government, in its issue of December 15, 1917. I read:
There is one and only one election issue to * be considered:	shall we send reinforcements
to the Front? If we shall aid our comrades, vote Union. If we shall desert our comrades, vote another way. The coming election is unique in two respects. It is being fought upon one issue, and one only.-that of compulsory service by the selective draft system. There are no other issues, because no other issue is big enough to intrude itself or be forced upon the consideration of men who are called upon to determine whether Canada is to hold her share of the line or drop out.
Sir, this was published in that most famous paper, which gave precise instructions to the men as to how they could perjure themselves and at the same time escape, through the good offices of a benevolent commissioner, the gaol penalty.
I will also deal, after referring to the omissions in the Speech from the Throne, with the-what shall I call it?-"please come-to-my-rescue" attitude of the Government towards Quebec, and I shall apply lightly-oh, very lightly, Mr. Speaker-the sterilized tweezers to the abscess which last Thursday came to a head in this House, burst, spurted out, and splashed the high ethics of parliamentary decency and the victim himself.
What are the issues which are not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne but which are of momentous interest to the House and to the country, and on which the Government never had any mandate to decide policies? First, there is the railway problem. Then there is the question of the government-owned merchant marine. Then there is the Imperial Conference which is to be held in London next June. There is also the question of loans to bankrupt countries. These are momentous questions, which every one will admit were not discussed during the elections of 1917 and on which the Government has policies which were not determined, were not even presented or discussed with the people at that time. The Government has inaugurated most definite and novel policies on most of these questions, for the determination of which they have no mandate; nevertheless there is not a line about these matters in the speech from the Throne.
Take the railway policy for example. No one will deny that the railway question in this country is a most important one. No one will deny that prior to 1917, when the Canadian Northern Railway deal was being put'thro ugh, and in 1919, when the Grand Trunk deal was put through, the policy of the Canadian people with regard to railways was private ownership. Can any hon. gentleman say that this question was discussed before the electorate? Can any hon. geptleman say that this Government went before the people in 1917, with the statement that they had decided to change from the time-immemorial Canadian Railway policy of private ownership to nationalization? Simply to ask the question is to get the answer that the Government had no mandate to determine such a policy.

I remember attempting- to discuss this question of the Canadian Northern with a Liberal of my riding who expressed his regret that, for the first time in his life, he had to give a vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier: He said to me, "I am against this Government on practically every measure that they have brought into the House; I do not accept their policy; I blame them for many things; I blame them, for instance, in connection with the question of nationalization of railways. But," he said, "there is only one question, the question of conscription"-and I wish you, Sir, to consider this remark-"and do you think that men like Mr. Carvell, Mr. Maclean and Mr. Guthrie who in Parliament have been bitterly opposed to nationalization of railways, would have entered the Union Government if this question could have been settled by the Union Government? "No," he told me, "these men entered the Union Government for the purpose of winning the war because they thought conscription was the best policy; but they are going to resign as soon as the war is over, because we have the promise from the Government that the Union Government was formed only during the time of the war; they will go to the people; they will discuss all these questions, and I shall be very happy to join again the ranks of the Liberal party."
Practically every country in the world has tried the policy of nationalization of railways and has discarded it. It would be tedious to the House if I were to read articles coming from different countries showing the utter failure of nationalization of railways; but may I be permitted to read just a few lines from the annual report of the president of our greatest financial institution, the Bank of Montreal? I quote the words of Sir Vincent Meredith:
Canada to-day has a very larg-e national railway system which is being operated at a heavy loss, thereby increasing the load on an already heavily taxburdened country. Sooner or later some means must be found to relieve this situation. Some confidently believe that by proper public administration of the lines, deficits can be cut down. My own view is that the proper solution will be found if the Government at the earliest feasible time, divests itself of ownership and operation of the roads and places them under corporate control upon terms fair to the country and upon. conditions that will ensure the service for which the construction of the lines was undertaken.
Then there is the question of the Government-owned merchant marine. Can the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. 
Ballantyne) state to the House that in 1917 when he ran in St. Lawrence, he discussed the question of a government-owned merchant marine with his electors? Can he say that he was elected on a policy of a government-owned merchant marine? I know that he cannot and he will admit that it was an entirely new departure from the usual and time-immemorial policy of the Canadian Government. Private ownership of merchant marine was the ordinary policy, and this is a new and novel policy. Has the Government then any mandate to go on and spend, as they did last year, $70,000,000 and to give contracts without tenders? Can any hon. member say that the Government has a mandate for such a policy? I will cite the opinion of the same gentleman, Sir Vincent Meredith, in the same annual report of the 7th December, 1920, regarding this policy:
In the same connection, and speaking for myself alone, it would apepar desirable that no more national expenditure should1 be made for the building of ships. While a programme of shipbuilding during the war was commendable, subsequent developments dictate a modified' policy. In June, 1914, the world tonnage totalled 49,000,000 tons; in June, 1920, it had risen to 57,300,000 tons, and. in addition, at the end of September this year there were 7,565,000 tons under construction. Tonnage at present exceeds requirements' and in expectation of rate reduction and shrinkage in earnings, construction abroad has already been arrested, and empty tonnage is now laid up in many ports. There is no ground for the belief that this condition will quickly pass. The United States recently failed to secure bids for standard ships; Japan has .cancelled orders for 1,000,000 tons in her own shipyards, and Norway is cancelling orders in Great Britain. These factors constitute, in my opinion, a danger signal that Canada might well heed and stop all further new construction.
Still, we read in the press that not later than a month or two months ago new Government ships were launched.
I come to another question which, in my opinion, is of paramount interest and of which also not a word was said in the speech from the Throne. There is to be held in London next June an Imperial Conference to which all the Prime Ministers of the Dominions have been invited and at which the internal as well as the external policy of the Empire is going to be discussed and decided. In the speech from the Throne at the opening of the British Parliament, His Majesty the King hoped that the conference would be "of the utmost value in bringing about coordination both in the external and the internal policy of the Empire." In a recent speech before the English-speaking

union, Mr. Winston Churchill, the new minister for the colonies, referring to that conference, stated "that an effective policy regarding ' Ireland, Egypt, and India will be discussed."
Why, Sir, not later than the 16th of February, this present month, the Prime Minister of England in his opening speech in Parliament, spoke of the intended conference and about the Dominions taking a share in the defence of the Empire. He also announced a far-reaching change in Imperial relations. Only last summer, a distinguished visitor from Great Britain inquired of some newspaper men whether in the case of a rebellion in India, Canada would be ready to send troops, What is the policy of the Government on these matters? What is that far-reaching change that is foreshadowed in Imperial relations? Is it possible that when His Majesty the King deems it important enough to be referred to in the speech from the Throne, when the Prime Minister of England thinks it important enough to mention in his opening speech in Parliament, and when a high official coming to this country from England speaks of this conference, and the possibility of Canada sending troops to India, that the Prime Minister of this country thinks it so negligible a matter as not to interest the people of Canada.
What is the mandate that was given to the members of the Government on this question? We would like to know the policy of our delegates. We have had very commendable delegates, it is true, men of talent who have done honour to Canada, but they went to these conferences in Europe without telling the representatives of the people in Parliament w;hat would be their policy, and without even asking the members of Parliament to determine a policy upon which they would stand. We had a very significant example of this state of affairs only recently when the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), before the League of Nations, proposed as an amendment to the League of Nations exactly what the Opposition proposed in the House, and which was voted down by the Government supporters. Then, Sir, I ask is it not fair to dissolve the House and formulate a policy on this most important question and let the people decide whether or not this policy is incompatible with Canadian interests.
I may be asked where I stand on this matter. I will be very frank and brief. I want the delegates not to deviate from the principle that under all circumstances no
matter that they may be, Canada's interests shall be first and foremost at all times.
Sir, through the will of Providence, we descendants of France became British subjects. Nature itself forbids us to deny the blood which flows in our veins. We have preserved for our old motherland a filial love, a deep affection that will only die with the race itself. It is the same love which I find amongst my English-speaking compatriots for the country of their origin. As I said before, through circumstances we became British subjects, and as such we enjoy important privileges and liberties. It is our duty and our interest to have for Great Britain a loyal and devoted respect, but although we have that respect and that loyalty nobody can reasonably expect from us towards Great Britain and the Empire the same love born of the ties of kinship that is embedded in the hearts of our English-speaking compatriots; although we piously preserve for old France a deep affection, although we have a great respect and loyalty and devotion for England, there is another country which we love more, nay, a hundred times more than England or France, a country which deserves to occupy first place in the hearts of every true Canadian. It is my only country; it is the country in whose sacred soil seven generations of my ancestors are sleeping their last slumber; it is that vast half continent bordered by three oceans, broad enough for every race and every creed, sprinkled with silver lakes and rivers, containing in its bossom inexhaustible wealth, covered by verdant mountains and golden prairies, and draping itself in winter with a vast ermine cloak. I love that country more than France or England, and you, Mr. Speaker, like me, must notice a deep feeling grip hold of your throat when its blessed name flows from your lips-it is le Canada, mon pays, mes amours.
Sir, there is another question on which this Government has no mandate, a question which was never discussed during the elections of 1917. It is the question of the Purchasing Commission. Sir, in olden days ministers were courageous enough to take the responsibility of the management of their departments, but now, purchasing has been turned over to an irresponsible commission. It was created during the war, I understand, and probably was very useful during the war, but, of course, this policy was not discussed in the election of 1917. Was it ever approved by the people?

Was it even approved by the members of this House? If I remember well, the Bill, as my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Be-land) stated the other day, was introduced in the House in 1919, and it was killed, the hon. member who made the most aggressive attack on the Bill being a supporter of the Government, the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart). It was reintroduced by another minister last year, but in face of impending disaster the sponge was thrown into the ring, and the Bill died a peaceful death. But the new Prime Minister, who claims to be a democratic Prime Minister, willing to submit to the will of the people and of the members of Parliament, if I am not mistaken, passed an order-in-council reviving the Commission, in utter disregard of the will of the people and the members of Parliament. Surely, the Government will not contend that they have a mandate to follow this new policy of shifting the responsibility for purchasing from the shoulders of the ministers of the different departments on to the shoulders of an irresponsible commission.
I could enumerate many other things of which there was no discussion in 1917 and for which the Government has no mandate. But let me come immediately to a matter in regard to which everyone will admit without the slightest hesitation that the Government has not even the semblance of a mandate. I refer to the love-making to Quebec. Anyone familiar with the appeals that were made in 1917 at the last general election will readily admit that not only was the Government not given a mandate to make love to Quebec, but that, on the contrary, those who voted for the Government gave them a specific mandate to ostracise Quebec; and now they are changing their policy and, I must say, are proving wholly false to their trust when they court Quebec.
Why, Sir, the rallying cry of 1917 was this:	"Shall Quebec rule? Down with
Quebec!" and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and even in the trenches in France and at social teas in London, wherever a large vote was gathered, this was the slogan: "A vote for Laurier and for the Liberal party is a vote for Quebec and domination by Quebec," Impartial history will one day record that that same slanderous slogan had as much effect upon the electors as the other slogan with which it was coupled, namely, of winning the war. The Government has no mandate, I say, to make love to Quebec.

But it may be interesting to note and to speak for a while about the sudden affection, this newly-born love for my old province. In 1917 Quebec was a'hindrance to Confederation: it was the contaminated black sheep of the family of this Dominion, which every other child was admonished and warned to shun; it was the backward, the ignorant, the outcast, the prejudiced, the priest-ridden province: I do not dare repeat the insults that were hurled at Quebec at that time, because if I did so I should be unparliamentary. Anyone who dared at that time to have intercourse with the Province of Quebec was banned from loyal and decent society. Quebec had to be isolated. But now, Sir, what do we see? The same papers that published these insults-I might say the same political stars who uttered these insults, and all these newspapers and public men that united in villifying her, cannot flow find eulogies enough to extol Quebec's sane morals and institutions, and her sane love for law and order; and they even go so far as to concede that Quebec will be the last refuge of civilization in America, praying that she do not remain isolated from the rest of Canada.
What has happened? Has Qiflebec changed? Is she not the same province, the same law-abiding province, the same in heart and mentality, the same in her institutions as well as in her modus vivendi? No, Sir, Quebec has not changed: She is the same Quebec of 1917, of 1867, of 1840, of 1759, and of 1642. She has the same habits, the same institutions, the same religious love for law and order, the same respect for her devoted clergy. And she goes along topping the other provinces in agriculture, in industry, in social advancement, in increase in population, in absence of unrest, following the destiny God has laid down for her, and undisturbed by the social unrest around her. And as Quebec believes in the principle that insults and compliments are alike always exaggerated, she is not any more over-joyed now by the incense of flattery of which she is the recipient, than she whs over-awed or overexcited by the mud that was slung at her in 1917.
Then, Mr. Speaker, you will probably ask me, if Quebec has not changed, whether the Government has changed. No, Sir. It is the same Tory administration with the same policy, and with the same friends, many of them still living, and with the same slanderers as in 1917. The bottom

of their hearts, or what they have in the place where their hearts should be, is still the same. Well, how is the situation to be explained if the Government has not changed and if Quebec is the same as she always was? Sir, the circumstances have changed. A new party has arisen in the country. That new party is not very friendly to the Government, and in order to retain power an alliance must be made with Quebec. So the orders have been given-tactical orders, I must say-to the slanderer and the fire-brand not to put any more coal on the fire, to close the dampers, to open the doors of the furnace and cover the fire with ashes for a while. But, Mr. Speaker, you can believe me, the fire is not altogether out, and if the government found it necessary to stir it again in order to win an election, there is not an hon. member who would say that they would hesitate for a moment to open the dampers, to shut the doors again, to shake the furnace anew and to feed the fire with more coal. But, Sir, my province's motto is "Je me souviens"-I remember. Quebec will forgive; her religion obliges her to do so; but Quebec will not easily forget. On the contrary, she will remember. She will remember those who have slandered and insulted her as well as she will remember the stalwart English-speaking Liberals of the other provinces who stood by her in her hour of trial.
Some people say that we are isolated. From whom are we isolated? We are isolated from the Government. It surprised me the other day on reading an address from the Prime Minister to see that he had deplored the isolation of Quebec. If the Prime Minister were now in his seat I would simply ask him this: If he is in earnest in his desire to stop the isolation of Quebec, let him dissolve the House and bring on a general election. He would then find out that it is not Quebec but the Government that is isolated. Why, Sir, if we were to respond to the appeal of the Government, if we were to make an alliance with them, we would be isolated for the rest of our lives; we would be isolated as soon as the next election took place. The journals and public men of my province do not admit that we are isolated but in this connection it may be of interest to read an extract from an editorial published in the Toronto Globe of 11th September, 1920. The caption is "Office is not the true bond," and it goes on to say:
It is the Government that is isolated' from Canada. It has lost touch, not only with
Quebec, but with the greater part of Canada. The temporary isolation of Quebec, due to causes which need not here be considered, is coming to an end and may almost be said to have disappeared. There is no fear of permanent isolation. Prench-Canaddans can very well afford to wait.
The young French-Canadian when he goes to school reads a little book. It is a very interesting little book and very easy for a young mind to read, but at the same time very literary. The work has already been cited in this House this session. I refer to the Fables of Lafontaine. That work contains more philosophy than other books written by the great philosophers of all time. There are two fables in it which are particularly interesting. There is first the fable of the goat and the fox, and then there is the fable of the wolf and the stork. If I might give a resume in a few words, of the fable of the goat and the fox it is this: A goat and a fox were travelling in /company. They had walked for quite a while and had developed a very strong thirst. Of course they were not in Ontario. When they came to a well they looked down into it and found that it was very deep. Nevertheless they were so thirsty they went down the well and after having satisfied their thirst they looked up and noticed its height. The fox saw that he could not reach the top without assistance, so turning to the goat he said, "You are a pretty big fellow, and with your front legs you can probably reach the top of the well. Why don't you put your front legs on the top of the well? Then I will run up your back, and when I am at the top I will pull you up;" and the goat believed him. The fox ran up the back of the goat and when he Was up of course he could not pull the goat out but he made a speech. He made a speech to the goat on isolation. He said he was very, very sorry that the poor goat had got isolated at the bottom of the well and he spoke about the virtue of patience and resignation. Well, Sir, Quebec will not be the goat that will enable the foxy Prime Minister to run up its back to get out of the well he is in now.
There is also, as I said before, another fable-the fable of the stork and the wolf. There was a wolf which was very fond of birds; he used to play havoc with flocks of birds whenever he encountered them. He was very partial to storks and one day, after having made an onslaught on a flock of storks and having eaten three or four of them, a large bone stuck in his throat and he was in danger of choking to death. At that moment he saw a big stork and said

to him, "Come to my help. Come and pick this bone out of my throat so that I shall not choke. In return for that I will pay you well, I will be good to you." The stork was a little bit suspicious at first but finally, out of charity, extracted the bone from the wolf's throat and then asked for his salary. The wolf said "Salary! You are very lucky that I did not eat you while your head was in my mouth," and the stork beeame wise. I may say to the Government and the Prime Minister that the province of Quebec is a wise stork that will keep away from the wolf that will not pick the bone out of its throat; and besides the stork is a pretty popular bird in my province.
Now, Sir, I come to the disagreeable part of my address. Last Thursday we witnessed an unprecedented spectacle in our political annals, in fact a spectacle unprecedented in the annals of British Parliamentary history. In the past, Sir, men have severed relations with their party but they have always expressed regret in doing so. When the late Hon. Mr. Blair resigned from the Laurier Administration on the question of the construction of the Transcontinental railway he expressed his regret at having to leave his former friends. Also when the hon. Mr. Patenaude resigned from the Borden Government on the question of conscription he likewise expressed regret at having to leave his former associates. When the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) left the Union Government he also parted company on a question of principle, and he expressed his regret at having to leave his former friends. What happened last Thursday? Did the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier), who then publicly left the Liberal party and his former friends, regret that he had to do so on a question of principle? He did not. To my mind, Sir, he was following orders. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, I repeat, was following orders. He was playing the third act of a four-act performance.
The first act was the preliminary conversation which the Prime Minister about his entering the Cabinet, and we had notice of it in the newspapers during the fall. The second act was the wholesale protestation of the Conservative heads of the district of Montreal, and so strong was their protestation that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) hesitated. The third act was the carrying out of the orders of the Prime Minister 
to the hon. gentleman-orders which unfortunately were executed publicly last Thursday. Those orders were to publicly sever his connection not only with the Federal Liberal party, but the Provincial Liberal party-with all his friends of the Liberal party-and to clear himself of two grave accusations that had been levelled against him a few years ago. The fourth act was to be his entrance into the Cabinet. Will it ever be performed? I have my doubts, Sir, because the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe and Rouville overdid the third act.	[DOT]
Why, sir, who will believe for one moment that a man who had been connected with the Liberal party for over a quarter of a century, who had assisted at every caucus, who had always voted with us, who had attacked the Government violently every time occasion arose, who even last summer in his own constituency attacked the Government, and who had never protested against our policy, should come to the point like he did last Thursday and viciously attack all his former friends without exception? Who could believe that a man who six months ago in his own paper wrote a laudatory article about the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), could have made the vulgar, coarse and uncalled for attack on the hon. member as he did last Thursday?
Well, the hon. gentleman must have brought comfort to his new friends, if they thought of inviting him to their caucus, when he related to the House what purported to be a discussion in a caucus of the Liberal party between the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). An expression of apprehension passed over the face of the Prime Minister when this incident was related. May I surmise, sir, that the Prime Minister had a vision of the possibility of a future similar incident happening in his own party?
But the hon. gentleman did not last Thursday say that he accepted the views of the hon. member for Brome or the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. On the contrary he ridiculed what he described as the different attitudes of the two hon. members. But I remember well, not later than last session, my hon. friend answered the hon. member for Centre Van-5'p.m. couver (Mr. Stevens who had been attacking the Liberal party on this question. That hon. member had then said:

Now, I should like to proceed to review briefly the attitude of my hon. friends opposite as given to the House and to the country in speeches delivered by the leading critics of the Opposition, the hon. member for Shelburne and1 Queen's and the hon. member for Brome.
After stating what free trade was, the hon. member for Centre Vancouver added:
But it is quite possible that the best of principles may be carried too far.
He was referring to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. Referring to the hon. member for Brome, he said that that gentleman had thus expressed himself:
That is the policy-referring to free trade -which the Liberal party aim at in the future; that is the policy which I wish to see adopted in this country.
In answering the hon. member for Centre Vancouver the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe and Rouville then said, and his words will be found at page 2606 of volume 3 of Hansard of last session:
My hon. friend has taken a great deal of pains to show to the House and to the country that there was' a contradiction between the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Any man belonging to a party and speaking in his individual name has a right to give his individual opinion; but if he belongs to a party and if he wishes to remain in that party, he must adhere to the platform of that party. The Liberal party held a convention in August of last year; they propounded their policy, and the hon. member for .Shelburne and Queen's and the hon. member for Brome, when they speak for the Liberal party, must adhere to that party's platform as propounded at that convention. But it is strange to me that my hon. friends would go to such pains to find contradictions in the policy propounded by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, when he himself declared to the House and to the country that he is going to support this Government which has no polity at all.
As I have to go rapidly over a few extracts, I will not make any comments, but will leave the House to judge the difference between the statements made by my hon. friend on Thursday and the statements he made in the House last session.
My hon. friend says that he is for protection, and that the protection issue is the lofty reason why he severs his connection with the Liberal party. He does not want a reduction of the tariff. But in the same volume, at page 2610, we find a speech of the hon. member and in it occurs a remarkable utterance regarding the tariff. He who is now for protection and who does not want any reduction in the tariff said on that occasion:
I would say to the Government:	Stop the
profiteers and you will strike at the root of the high cost of living; there is no other way. You cannot instantly delate your currency because lit would mean ruin to the country; but strike at the very root of the evil and you will cure the unrest which that evil engenders. I say again:	Reduce the
tariff and you will help to reduce the cost of living.
The policy followed by this Administration has had the result of creating an unrest which continues to grow every day and every week, and this policy is proved by its results to be wrong. Change it; reduce the tariff and you will reduce the cost of living.
The hon. gentleman stated last Thursday that we were not consistent. Let us see how consistent he himself is. Last year he voted for an amendment similar to the one which is now before the House, against which he declared himself last Thursday. Not only did he vote for that amendment; he spoke in favour of it. Every hon. gentleman will remember that that was the occasion on which he said that the hour of Quebec had struck. Now, what did the hon. member say? I find his words at page 65 of Hansard, Volume I, of last session The hon. member said with regard to the amendment:	f
Whatever the Government may say or do, nobody believes that they represent the people or that they were elected1 through a franchise which represented public opinion. Nobody believes it. They may say we have a sound and well balanced Government. But they are alone to say so andi I think they do not even believe what they say.
Then he goes on:
In the public interest, gentlemen-
The hon. member evidently thought he was on the hustings.
In the public interest, gentlemen, do not hesitate to sink your personal ambitions to make up your mind to renounce the sweets of office, go to the country apeal to the people, and should the people through means I .do not wish to qualify here, wish to give you another lease of power,, you shall at least have public confidence behind you, you shall at least have the support of public opinion. Beware you do not tarry and wait till class feeling has reached such a pitch that you can no longer stem the' tide. And that is why I cannot understand the position taken by the Government in refusing to accept the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.
The hon. member said the other day that the natural alliance for the province of Quebec was an alliance with Ontario. He said, as reported on page 86 of Unrevised Hansard of this year:
I have claimed' all along that the natural ally of Quebec is Ontario. Since 1912, after the defeat of reciprocity in 1911, in the ranks

of ray own party I have advocated that theory and' preached1 it as a gospel.
This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that such a doctrine from the hon. member has reached my ears. But I did hear my hon. friend preach a doctrine with regard to an alliance with Ontario. Let us see what he said in 1918, as reported on page 1434 of Hansard, Volume 2, of that year, about an alliance with Ontario:
I said in ray opening remarks that it was necessary to the welfare of the country that trade should not be disturbed and that peace and harmony should be restored. Some people contend-
The following words are very significant, Mr. Speaker.
Some people contend that 'this country is threatened with a yellow menace which -S coming from the Asiatic continent. I believe that there is a yellow menace, but it is no. coming from Asia; it is coming from Ontario It springs from Orange lodges and it sows hatred' in order to reap votes at the polls.


Mr. DUFF:: Who said that?


Joseph Archambault: The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville. He also said in his speech the other day that he believed in the minority making an alliance with majorities when they cannot win them to their cause. Sir, I believe that a minority should fight for a principle, even if its fights without hope of succees. But contrary to the opinion of my hon. friend, I believe not only that we have appealed to the majority, but that our appeal has been successful. Let the Government dissolve the House, and my hon. friend will find out whether or not I am right.
The hon. member also said in his speech that no one from the district of Montreal is proud of his leader, the hon. member from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). I may say that I for one am proud of him-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Archambault: -and if I can judge from the applause which greets my remarks, there are other hon. members from the district of Montreal who are proud of him. I am not only proud of him; I am proud of his patriotism, proud of his services to the country, proud of the honour which he has brought to the name of the province of Quebec.
I wish now, Sir, to correct an historical error which occurs in the hon. member's speech. With his usual modesty, the hon. member compared himself to Lafontaine and Cartier-Lafontaine in 1840 and Cartier in 1849. The hon. member, as reported on page 92 of Unrevised Hansard, speak-

ing of the Act of Union and the unrest that the Act had created in Upper and Lower Canada at the time, said:
Then Louis Hypolyte Lafontaine came into the public arena.
He appealed to the majority in the country and appealed to his own people, and the Union Act was passed.
Why, Sir, I was under the impression- and every man wfco knows the history of Canada can support my contention-that Lafontaine fought bitterly against the Act of Union, that a Tory Government at that time headed by Draper and aided by Lord Sydenham, did what this Government did in 1917-disfranchised numbers of the people. They even went so far as to go to the county of Terrebonne, where Lafontaine was running, with loaded revolvers to prevent the electors from registering their votes.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: I do not know how I was reported, but any scholar must know that what -I meant was, according to history, that Lafontaine came to have the Act of Union of Upper and Lower Canada accepted by the province of Ontario as in the province of Quebec. That is what I meant.


Joseph Archambault: Of course, we have -to accept my hon. friend's statement. But let me read again what my hon. friend said as reported on page 92 of Hansard:
Then Louis Hypolyte Lafontaine came into the public arena. He appealed to the majority in th.e country and appealed to his own people, and the Union Act was passed.
Nobody will infer from those remarks that Lafontaine came in only after the Act had been passed. Lafontaine, in a most famous speech which he made at the time,. said:
Another question of no less importance is the Act of Union of the two provinces. It is an act of injustice and despotism because it was imposed on us without our consent; because it deprives Lower Canada of her legitimate representation, because it deprives us of the use of our language in the legislative proceedings, notwithstanding the treaties and the word of the Governor,' because it forces us to pay without our consent a debt which we have not contracted, because it allows the executive to take possession illegally, under the name of the Civil List, without the vote of the representatives of the people of an enormous part of the revenues of the country.
My hon. friend may have been badly reported, but I hope when I repeat the words, reported in Hansard, of what he said about Cartier, he will not find again the same excuse. As regards Cartier, my hon. friend said:

Then in 1849, when the annexation memorandum was signed, and when the Parliament Buildings in Montreal were burned, when this country was on the verge of disruption, Cartier arose and appealed to the majority and to my people and they united together and peace was restored once more.
Cartier became a minister of the Crown only in 1855 and had nothing to do with the restoration of peace in 1849-peace which had been destroyed, together with the Parliament Buildings, by the loyal Tories of the time, who also assailed the representative of the Crown, His Excellency the Governor General, Lord Elgin.
I am very sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) is not in his seat, as it might be very encouraging to him to listen again to some remarks made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville regarding the Government. Speaking on conscription on the 21st June, 1917, as reported in Hansard, volume 3, page 2553, the hon. member said:
In order that everybody should be satisfied, the Solicitor General this afternoon, in his most suave manner, assured the people of Quebec not to worry, because the Bill would bear more lightly upon Quebec than upon the other
provinces	We resent the insult
whether direct or indirect	I will
not allow any hon. gentleman to cast a slur upon us. I am not a minister of the Crown in this Government, thank Heaven!
This reminds me, Sir, of the other day when the hon. gentleman threw up his hands and said: "God save the Liberal party!"


Mr. TRAHAN:: Who was the Solicitor General at that time?


Joseph Archambault: The right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Meighen). There is something I might say that is even more edifying, and we find it in Hansard of 1917, volume 6, page 5824. I might tell the House that the discussion was on the Wartime Elections Act which had been introduced by the Solicitor General, now the Prime Minister, and this is what the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville said about this Act:
It has been said that the franchise legislation laid before this Parliament would be worthy of the German Kaiser. I think it is doing an injustice to the Kaiser, to compare him to this Government	 Now, what do we see in this House? The most iniquitous measures, the most unjust and the most outrageous to the liberty of the citizens, are introduced into Parliament, and in what way? 'As the sponsor for such a Bill-
And the hon. member was referring to the then Solicitor General, now the Prime Minister.
-they pick out the man with the softest, the mellowest voice, a real eunuch's voice, might I say to express its full justness and sweetness.
This epithet attached to the quality of the voice of the Prime Minister might be the interesting subject of further conferences between the two hon. gentlemen. I will not speak of the grotesque and sacrilegious comparison the hon. gentleman has made between himself and St. John the Baptist, nor of the whole hour he took in trying to repulse accusations made against him a few years ago; but I will leave to his meditation words that he has spoken himself regarding the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), and that can be found at pages 76 and 77 of Volume 1 of Hansard of the session of 1919. I will leave the hon. gentleman to meditate over these words in an endeavour to find out if they do not apply to another member of this House apart from the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. The hon. member said:
The hon. minister also told us that "he was still a Liberal and that nobody could put him out." .	.	[DOT] The hon. gentleman announces that he is still a Liberal, that he was a Liberal when he entered the Cabinet, and that he will remain one. I shall not enter into any discussion with him on tl\at point. I shall not discuss his motives for leaving the party, it is no business of mine. But speaking for myself, I tell the hon. gentleman I do not regret his exit from our ranks. When the fruit becomes too ripe, Mr. Speaker, it falls from the tree which has given it life and which has brought it to maturity. The tree still continues to grow and to give its own life to other fruit, but the fruit, which has fallen to the ground is destined for destruction.
I will simply add-and that will be my last word-that my advice to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville is: Discuss these words with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, and ponder upon them seriously, because "birds of a feather flock together."


Mr. CHARLES SHEARD (South Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to
give a silent vote on this issue as is often my custom and I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment or two while I make a few remarks. I have endeavoured to follow, the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) who has just taken his seat, and have tried to fix my attention on the little family quarrel there has been among hon. gentlemen opposite. Personally, I am not particularly concerned in that. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) claims to be the John the Baptist of
i

Quebec. Whether he is or not it is not for me to say, but certainly his colleagues seem to pay some regard to that claim. Personally, I cannot see on what ground the claim is made, but we do know that John the Baptist lost his head, and further we know why he lost it. It was demanded by a danseuse of questionable virtue, as the price of King Herod's pleasure. I do not know who represents that maiden who demanded the head, or who represents Herod, in the case before us. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat had some questions to ask regarding the policy of the Government, and one which appeared to my mind to be important was as to what the policy of this Government would be at the Imperial Council. Has my hon. friend forgotten that this party has embodied the national policy of the old Conservative party? It is the same policy for which the Conservative governments in the motherland and in all the Dominions have ever stood. It is the Imperial policy. I want to read a clearer and better explanation than I could give of the Imperial complexion of that policy. I was tempted to give this quotation as I listened to the question which was put by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, and which, if I remember correctly, was this: "What will be the policy of this Government at the Imperial Council?" Then he went on to say "I stand for Canadian interests first, foremost and at all times." Well, I venture to say there is no Imperial or national policy in that. There is not a Canadian in this House but who stands for the same thing according to his light. There is not a Canadian who has ever attained a place in this House who would presume to stand in Canada for anything else. I want to read to the House a statement made by Lord Beaconsfield in Manchester in the month of April, 1872, when this question was under discussion. Yes, that is some time ago. This great Conservative fraught with all the knowledge of the past, and almost prescient of the future, gave utterance to this statement which I will read in the hope that the hon. member fdr Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) may profit thereby. This is Lord Beaconsfield's statement, not mine:
It you look to the history of this country since the advent of Liberalism forty years ago, you will find there has been no effort so continuous, so subtle, supported by so much energy and carried on with so much ability and acumen, as the attempts of Liberalism to affect the disintegration of the Empire of England and of all its efforts, this is the one which has been 
the nearest to success; statesmen of the highest character, writers of the most distinguished ability, the most organized and efficient means have been employed in this endeavour. it Iras been proved by all of us that we have lost money by our colonies; it has been shown with precise and mathematical demonstration that there never was a jewel in the crown of England that was so truely costly as the possession of India. How often has it been suggested that we should at once emancipate ourselves from this incubus? Well, that result was nearly [DOT] accomplished when those subtle views were adopted by the country under the plausible plea of granting self government to the colonies. Not that I for one object to self' government but self government in my opinion when it was conceded, ought to have been conceded! as part of the great policy- of Imperial consolidation. It ought to have been accompanied with an Imperial tariff. It ought further to have -been -accompanied by some representative council in the metropolis which would have -brought the colony into constant and continuous relations with the home government. All this, however, was -omitted because those who advised -that policy (and I believe their convictions were sincere) looked upon the colonies of England, looked even upon our connection with India, as a -burden on this country, viewing the financial, aspect by those moral and political considerations which make nations great and by the influence of which alone men are distinguished from the animals. Well, what has been the result of this attempt during the reign of Liberalism for the disintegration of the Empire. It has entirely failed but how has it failed'; through the -sympathies of the colonies with the mother country. They have decided that .the Empire shall not be destroyed and in my opinion no minister in this country will do his duty who neglects 'any opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible our -Colonial Empire and of responding to those distinct sympathies which may -become the source of incalculable strength and happiness to this land.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I ask the hon. member whether these views, expressed so eloquently by Lord Beaeons-field, are the views which he thinks his party stands for to-day?


Charles Sheard: Those were the views
of Lord Beaconsfield, the leader of the old Conservative party in England in 1872 and I say that those views prepared the public mind for an Imperial Council, and a union of the colonies through colonial representation in England. That is going to be effected, I understand, in the coming year. The colonies will meet to discuss their fiscal and other relations with the Empire.


Jacques Bureau: There are no colonies
now. We are sister nations.


Charles Sheard: Yes, we have got a group of nations, and all the better if we have, if we are going to work in harmony together. The trouble with hon. members opposite is that they are out of step with the great

national ideals and aspirations; they are out of step with Canada, and want to claim that it is the fault of the Government. They isolated themselves; no one on this side of the House, no one representing any constituency on this side, has ever isolated Quebec. Quebec took her stand on the issue of conscription. The then leader of the Liberal party had a policy and he had the courage to announce that policy; all honour to him. He said that he opposed conscription because he did not believe in the principle of coercion; that the people of the province of Quebec would not submit to coercion. That, as I understand it, was the issue; it was a proper issue for him to take. No one found fault with him for taking that issue, but we did not agree with him, and as a consequence he put the province of Quebec where it is; as a result of his policy it was isolated. It was not the Prime Minister; it was not the Government; it was Quebec's own determination.


Jacques Bureau: Do not cry over our isolation; cry over your own.


Charles Sheard: I am not advising you as to what you are to do, nor am I inviting you.


Jacques Bureau: I hope not.


Charles Sheard: But members opposite are contending that their isolation is due to some iniquity on the part of the Government. They are oblivious to everything else but their own lack of force and power. Well, since then they have a new leader and they claim that we ought to get out because we were elected simply and solely to win the war. As I have often heard it repeated that we were elected as a war government and for no other purpose than to win the war, I have often wondered what was the function of the Opposition? Were they here in the Dominion of Canada's Parliament to oppose winning the war? I cannot understand the consistency of their attitude at all.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, that joke is exploded.


Charles Sheard: Yes, and there will be something else exploded in the province of Quebec before long, and the autocrats who are at the head and throttle of every effort to strangle free speech and other expressions of independence of character the very moment they are manifest will perhaps realize that even in Quebec the people rule.


Jacques Bureau: In Toronto too.


Charles Sheard: Yes, there is free speech in Toronto, and we shall be glad to have an address from the hon. 'member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). Any time he wants to come we will give him a hall.


William Duff: Admission by ticket?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Charles Sheard: No, sir; we will have the doors wide open and will let the hon. gentleman hear, for once before he dies, the true echo of the voice of Canada; and there will be no free trade in it and no material reduction in the tariff.
Now, a good deal has been said of what the Union Government projected in the year 1917. I was one of thdse who had the privilege and pleasure of hearing the then Prime Minister's speech in that campaign; and I remember quite clearly certain points which he put forward as embodying the policy of the Government. The main one was the pledging of the country to conscription. The next was the abolition of patronage, and there was considerable talk in the city of Toronto regarding that issue, and some discontent, I will admit, was manifest. It required considerable explanation and it was made a very prominent feature in the speech delivered there by the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman then took up somewhat in detail the conditions that would arise out of the war, and we are still dealing with them now.
It has been stated in this debate that there is general discontent in the country; that the soldiers are ,discontented; that the labour unions are discontented; that the aliens are discontented; that the province of Quebec is discontented. Well, I come from one of the largest manufacturing centres in this Dominion and I have heard no disconterit expressed regarding this Government. I have heard, however, decided and emphatic expressions from the organized labour parties of the city of Toronto that they want proper representation by population, and they have instructed me, as one of their representatives, to see that this Government gives it to them and sits in office till the lawful time arrives when we can have a new census and can have all votes equal. Now we have in Toronto about one vote to three votes in the rural districts. We have a population of about 550,000, and, I think, some six representatives. We want that changed, and we are going to sit here if we can until it is changed. We are going to give to those centres the representation

to which they are entitled; and if the cities and towns in the West, which our Agrarian friends represent, have the increased representation which they ought to have, are they not entitled to it? Is not that the spirit and idea of representation by population? After all, I take it that there is some force in the justice of the demand.
But we know perfectly well under the present conditions that the tariff policy is going to be a very important one. It is going to be the issue, whether hon. gentlemen wish it or not, and they know it. They are fully aware of that, and they think they will have a better chance, if there is not* the full representation given to the mercantile and the manufacturing and industrial centres, which they will get under the redistribution, and where there has been shown the geratest increase in population.
The leader of the Opposition made a great flowery and educational speech in which he seemed to have adopted as his policy, so far as I could discern any policy -and I read his speech over a couple of times-a new slogan:	"Quo warranto."
There is one matter, he says, which transcends all others in importance, and that is the present position of the Government and of this Parliament in relation to the will of the people. The Government has no right to office because such is not the will of the people; it is the Government that is defective. Well, I entered this Parliament a comparatively new member to learn parliamentary procedure. I found members who were definitely pledged, and elected on their pledge, to support this Government and to assist them in all measures which they considered necessary and essential to succour and support our troops at the front, and I was somewhat surprised to find that before six weeks had elapsed they were crawling to the cross benches to fight hammer and tongs to beat the Government.
Some of these gentlemen sit on the opposite benches now. The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is one. He is one of those who are now fighting strenuously against the present Government, and I ask what, in his case, became of the will of the people? Did he go back to get the opinion of his constituents on his attitude? Not a bit of it. He took the matter into his own hands. He said, "I am not going to sit there and support the Government although I was elected to do so.
I am going to cross the floor of the House 
and sit with the Opposition and I am going to hammer the Government;" and he and others have been hammering the Government ever since. Do my hon. friends imagine that the public are going to take any great stock or pay much attention to the cry that this Government does not represent the people in the face of such actions on the part of hon. gentlemen sitting in opposition? I fancy these questions will be raised when we do have a general election.
Then the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres discussed the railway policy and the nationalization of railways. I well remember when the legislation for that purpose was introduced and the debate which took place upon it. I well recall the Minister of Railways asking the leader of the Opposition what his policy was on the nationalization of railways, and if I remember correctly the latter replied that he was quite prepared to announce a policy when he should be called upon to assume the responsibility of framing it. Well, that is on all fours with his attitude on the tariff. He does not want to announce his policy on the tariff. He has not got any policy. He has an association with the Agrarian members of this House who are sincere in wanting free-trade.
I acquit our Agrarian friends of any insincerity. They are demanding free-trade and they are going to work to get it, and they are going to have a large section of the West behind them in trying to get it if I understand the situation. But do not imagine for one moment that they are going to compromise themselves by taking any office under, or associating with, the befogged leader of the Opposition. They are going to frame the fiscal policy of the country if they have the power to do it and have the necessary number of votes behind them, and they are going to make the Government in office dance to the tune which they will play. Then my hon. friends opposite will have to declare what their fiscal policy is under their present leader.
Will the leader of the Opposition, or any living man, be able to frame or carry out a policy which will suit the province of Quebec and also suit our Agrarian friends who are demanding with all sincerity the adoption of free-trade in Canada? The people of Quebec know, just as well as I do, that their interests are the same as those of many of the other provinces. What they w'ant is a policy of reasonable protection to

maintain the industries and maintain the use of the native products of Canada to be worked by our own workmen into finished articles; and no Government that adopts any other policy can long endure in the province of Quebec.
The leader of the Opposition does not know what his policy is on the nationalization of railways, and cannot declare it today. We know that the province of Quebec is in favour of the private ownership of railways. We know that the province of Ontario is crying out for the nationalization of railways. There you have the two sets of conditions, and we have to harmonize them and bring them into accord so as to secure the greatest good for the greatest number. As for us in the large centres of Ontario, we stand for nationalization of railways and we are going to work out the experiment as we now have it, although it is not of our seeking. It originated from a number of blunders and from mal-admin-istration of railway problems in the whole Dominion on the part of a previous government. Still we are going to try and work the problem out to its ultimate end for the good of the great majority of the people. No doubt the province of Quebec will watch with interest the working out of the experiment.
We have been told a great deal about the influence of the by-elections, and the result in West Peterborough, Peterborough has been brought up as an example to terrify the Government. Well, the only one who carried out the idea announced by the leader of the Opposition was the former member for West Peterborough who sat in the House last year. Apparently the Opposition converted him into thinking that the best thing he could do was to have an election in his constituency. He tried the experiment on himself, he had an election, and where is he to-day? He is at home, and it will be a long time before we will follow any such leader as that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will take no chance.


Charles Sheard: As to what has been said about the ostracism of Quebec I regret it because I am earnestly desirous of seeing a united Canada.


Jacques Bureau: Do not brag; we are all right.


Charles Sheard: I return the compliment. I have great admiration for many of the representatives of the province of Quebec. I think they are very fine Canadians, so much so that in my opinion Canada would lose by not having them. With their polish, their graciousness of manner, their cordiality, and a great many more fine attributes-inherent to the race from which they spring1-which have descended to them, we want them in the national life of Canada. We want union and harmony. We want the development of a large, free and progressive nation. We want a united people, we want to have Canadians united and animated by a lov6 for Canada, and we do not want these petty differences that we have seen manifested so pointedly here this afternoon, and which we on this side regret.
We extend to hon. gentlemen opposite our commiseration on the quarrels in their ranks. We do not like the leadership which hon. gentlemen opposite appear to have. We take issue with hon. gentlemen opposite on their policy. Nay, we deplore their lack of policy. We deplore the condition that was so well illustrated last night by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) when he showed us that hon. gentlemen opposite have one policy apparently in Peterborough, Ontario and another policy in Kamloops, British Columbia. They have a policy for every day in the year and a policy to suit the weather, whether the sun shines or whether there is a down-pour of rain.
Listening to the efforts of the leader of the Opposition I was reminded of what occurred to me once when I was a boy. I was out with others working on a farm. It was in the spring of the year and the wheat was just sprouting in the field. In Ontario, you know, the farmers are very careful about their wheat, because a great deal of labour is required to produce it and to get it to grow, and the farmers have to fallow their ground. Well a number of us boys were going out one day and we were crossing a wheat field. "Hey" shouted the farmer who owned the field, "Get out of that wheat field, that is not the road." One of our numbers said "Mister, do you know where we are going?" "No," said the farmer, "I do not." "How then do you know," asked our companion "That this is not the road?" It appears to me that this story illustrates the position of hon. gentlemen opposite. We ask them "Where are you going?" But they do not know the road, and the leader at their head does not know either. How can a man lead when he does



not know where he is going. For my part I like to follow a leader who knows the road. We know that disasters often befall men who do not know where they are going 

do not know whether they are going north or going south, and I honestly gather from the speeches of the hon. leader of the Opposition that that is about his position on this question.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and discuss some points about the tariff, but as I may possibly have a word or two to say when the Budget is uppermost, and as I want to make my points as clearly applicable as I can to the debate as it has occurred from day to day, I will leave it at that now. I hope the gentlemen opposite will consider earefully their ultimate decision regarding the disposal of John the Baptist, that they will read anew the parable in the Scriptures and give it careful consideration, and that they will remember that history may draw its own interpretation as to the character of the men who took part in the debate and action upon that issue.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Crerar the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule*
Thursday, February 24, 1921